Huntster Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 3 hours ago, vinchyfoot said: The Olympic Project is OK, the NAWAC is too far down the pro-kill path and as such have lost objectivity....... What does this mean? You can disagree with their goal, but it's a lot more simple and "objective" than trying to get their dna from lake water, trying to infiltrate their family group and co-habitate with them, or trying to catch one in a box. Deny it as they will, it's oretty obvious that the gatekeepers of "science" will not open the gate until somebody delivers a carcass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Huntster said: What does this mean? You can disagree with their goal, but it's a lot more simple and "objective" than trying to get their dna from lake water, trying to infiltrate their family group and co-habitate with them, or trying to catch one in a box. Deny it as they will, it's oretty obvious that the gatekeepers of "science" will not open the gate until somebody delivers a carcass. Or like means of DNA, a carcass need not be shot, it can be found after dying of other causes. To listen them theirs is the ONLY way. A multifaceted approach covers more bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 55 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said: Or like means of DNA, a carcass need not be shot, it can be found after dying of other causes. To listen them theirs is the ONLY way. A multifaceted approach covers more bases. They have sent in DNA before? They ARE multi faceted. You on the other hand are not. Your anti kill obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said: Or like means of DNA, a carcass need not be shot, it can be found after dying of other causes. To listen them theirs is the ONLY way. A multifaceted approach covers more bases. Obviously neither method has worked. If they exist then certainly the preferred means is finding a corpse. I am very much in favor of obtaining a specimen by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Obviously neither method has worked. If they exist then certainly the preferred means is finding a corpse. I am very much in favor of obtaining a specimen by any means. Any, eh? I say we firebomb the area with the largest cluster of sightings in the past 5 years somewhere in the PNW. There should be bodies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Any, eh? I say we firebomb the area with the largest cluster of sightings in the past 5 years somewhere in the PNW. There should be bodies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 35 minutes ago, norseman said: What is one forest if it means recognition and saving the species as a whole? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 On 1/13/2020 at 9:36 AM, Foxhill said: ' Again with the "appeal to authority" for lack of results is a failed argument and then with the "not enough effort has been put into it by the right people" is a fail as well. I guess my point is with the deer hunting analogy is the only difference between you and a deer hunter is your quarry, and of course a deer hunters success rate. You as a Bigfoot researcher and I'm assuming a successful hunter struggle with why you can't apply the same techniques to Bigfoot hunting, your not the first and I'm sure you wont be the last to fail at your efforts, then start imagining all manner of extraordinary attributes that account for the failure to do so, I get it I've been there. I'm not closed minded at all, and at 60yrs old I'd suggest my experience far out weighs most on this website, which includes every type of conjectured behavior attributed to Bigfoot other than a face to face encounter, and obviously I've reached a different conclusion, than you have. I'd suggest a little self reflection on the closed mind issue, lets not make this personal. I'm still wide open to the possibility and would love for Biggie to be discovered. But your argument that we just haven't tried hard enough is pretty weak. You might just be looking in the wrong place for another upright biped, carry yourself to South America or Africa and you might get lucky. Now there I agree with you, in one of those locations you would need a well funded, long duration project, but in the U.S. not so much. What I would suggest to you and anyone else new to the subject is first do a deep dive into the history of the flora and fauna as it relates to the U.S. continent, what you'll find is not a lot of critters escaped our dinner tables and any that were a perceived threat, including another biped were brought to the brink of extinction, its astounding that anything over 10lbs escaped our attention. I'm not trying to denigrate you or your opinion, just offering up a different take on the phenomenon that is Bigfoot. Starting to think about Spring Gobbler season in Virginia, I'll be in numerous Bigfoot hotspots any suggestions? I apologize for my pointed replies, I have become a very blunt person these days as I am not exactly a new comer to this subject. I am open to self reflection or considering a point of perspective from other angles but I am also very experienced for my age. Some would suggest I know something and others may say that my level of bias has made things less than clear. ( make of that what you will ) I continue to stand by my points, in short it is most likely an issue of very smart, very few and very little search. I asked you to back up your position that discovery should have happened with all the boots and eyes out over the years, you have not effectively done so. I pointed out that Jane was entirely outfitted for years to specifically study chimps, not that she was any kind of expert at the time, it was simply a perfect storm at a time that nobody was. She did have local guides who set her up very well, she consulted those with encounters/sightings. My point is that no serious level of education/expertise has been conducting investigation into this subject. The direction of effort matters when examining something specific, to find creatures with intelligence you need to apply intelligence. If you wanted to find an 8 foot ninja living in an wilderness area would you call a biologist or a psychologist, LOL. I am very aware of the level of forest/environmental impact humans had in the early construction of North America, effectively we laid wast to the majority of old growth forests by way of logging and river diversion. Many forms of wildlife numbered within 10% of their original population due to over-hunting, exposure and reduced breeding habitat. The truth is that science has been phobic of Sasquatch since the beginning for a variety of reasons ranging from religion to industry and as of now a top down position on academic interest in conducting investigation of topic ( several biologists come to mind who can tell you it is more than a perspective ). Science has not investigated this topic, if you disagree then can you provide some evidence of this position that can render the point ? This creature has been here for a very long time and the behaviors have not changed, the body of evidence remains consistent and does not illustrate the hallmarks of simple human story telling as the data is clearly not fictitious, the patterns we can note closely mirror standards within biology ( outside of misidentification ). This particular section of discussion is very wide and would need a new thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 17 minutes ago, NatFoot said: What is one forest if it means recognition and saving the species as a whole? Can you contain the ensuing forest fire? Or am I gonna lose my house as well? 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 19 minutes ago, norseman said: Can you contain the ensuing forest fire? Or am I gonna lose my house as well? Well....I hadn't gotten that far. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 16, 2020 Admin Share Posted January 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, NatFoot said: Well....I hadn't gotten that far. Westerns fear fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 28 minutes ago, NathanFooter said: If you wanted to find an 8 foot ninja living in an wilderness area would you call a biologist or a psychologist, LOL. A definitive answer? A biologist- without question. Because you DON'T find it. You find irrefutable DNA evidence in the drainage and watershed systems. Check ponds downhill from ridges and caves. One wouldn't have to canvass an entire National Forest ecosystem either. But any results would save weeks if not months of boots on the ground. It would take a broad scientific effort though, not just one biologist out on a weekend, though it wouldn't be impossible for one in the right area. It's absolutely time to get smart about this and I've been saying that for quite a while now. This would be in addition to whatever anyone else wants to do. But it's a most important addition that should not be left idling. And here's the point, one doesn't need a Sasquatch genome in the GenBank for comparison. All one needs is something that LOOKS like Human DNA but have something different than Homo Sapiens sapiens even though it may read as Human. We can seem to determine a different Homo species that is VERY close to us, such as Denisovan and Neanderthal. Sasquatch wouldn't BE that close, and I'm convinced of that. So Seeing Human DNA that isn't quite normal should be expected. I'm weary of the "too degraded" excuse. The work around is to get fresh samples from the field that are under 48 hours old. Heck science is tracking winter migrations now by getting DNA from tracks in SNOW! My advice? Science has said numerous times that e-DNA can be used to find unknown organisms. So, for this case, stop testing for animals in remote habitat and start testing for primates! Just use Human, Gorilla, and Chimpanzee markers as protocol and stop all this foolishness. Edited January 16, 2020 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanFooter Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, hiflier said: A definitive answer? A biologist- without question. Because you DON'T find it. You find irrefutable DNA evidence in the drainage and watershed systems. Check ponds downhill from ridges and caves. One wouldn't have to canvass an entire National Forest ecosystem either. But any results would save weeks if not months of boots on the ground. It would take a broad scientific effort though, not just one biologist out on a weekend, though it wouldn't be impossible for one in the right area. It's absolutely time to get smart about this and I've been saying that for quite a while now. This would be in addition to whatever anyone else wants to do. But it's a most important addition that should not be left idling. And here's the point, one doesn't need a Sasquatch genome in the GenBank for comparison. All one needs is something that LOOKS like Human DNA but have something different than Homo Sapiens sapiens even though it may read as Human. We can seem to determine a different Homo species that is VERY close to us, such as Denisovan and Neanderthal. Sasquatch wouldn't BE that close, and I'm convinced of that. So Seeing Human DNA that isn't quite normal should be expected. I'm weary of the "too degraded" excuse. The work around is to get fresh samples from the field that are under 48 hours old. Heck science is tracking winter migrations now by getting DNA from tracks in SNOW! My advice? Science has said numerous times that e-DNA can be used to find unknown organisms. So, for this case, stop testing for animals in remote habitat and start testing for primates! Just use Human, Gorilla, and Chimpanzee markers as protocol and stop all this foolishness. My statement was relative to my point about having a specific direction to pursue something with a big brain and the correct answer is both ( kind of a trick question I suppose ). I certainly see plenty of room for your angle but it is very costly at this point in time, if I had ample funding to do this, I would in a heartbeat. I have a DNA collection kit that is up to human standards that also provides additional sample containment options, I keep it in my SUV should I need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 22 minutes ago, NathanFooter said: I certainly see plenty of room for your angle but it is very costly at this point in time, if I had ample funding to do this, I would in a heartbeat. I have a DNA collection kit that is up to human standards that also provides additional sample containment options, I keep it in my SUV should I need it. Cool! And yes, costly...for US. But academia and F&W is sampling ALL THE TIME. so there IS funding for doing this kind of research. My efforts are to get our particular...um...criteria piggybacked onto existing programs. Or at least to have those programs not toss out Human contaminated samples until they verify that the DNA is from a Human. My point being there should be slight differences showing that the "Human" DNA really isn't from a Human. In my way of looking at things this is a valid discussion to bring up to an academic biology/vertebrate zoology department. The funding is already there in the millions of dollars and samples from the field are being brought in every day. Finding Human DNA "contaminated" samples for these folks is a no brainer. In fact, the training for taking sample is so easy that I doubt there is very much contamination going on at all. But when there is, a closer look would be all I would ask of them. No special trips would be needed unless someone happens to find.....something Edited January 16, 2020 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vinchyfoot Posted January 16, 2020 Share Posted January 16, 2020 4 hours ago, norseman said: They have sent in DNA before? They ARE multi faceted. You on the other hand are not. Your anti kill obviously. No, you assume... if its that black and white, I'm not the one with a rigid mindset. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts